Quantum Foundations

In general relativity, the picture of space–time assigns an ideal clock to each world line. Being ideal, gravitational effects due to these clocks are ignored and the flow of time according to one clock is not affected by the presence of clocks along nearby world lines. However, if time is defined operationally, as a pointer position of a physical clock that obeys the principles of general relativity and quantum mechanics, such a picture is, at most, a convenient fiction.

In physics, every observation is made with respect to a frame of reference. Although reference frames are usually not considered as degrees of freedom, in all practical situations it is a physical system which constitutes a reference frame. Can a quantum system be considered as a reference frame and, if so, which description would it give of the world?

In order to think about the foundations of physics it is important to understand the logical relationships among the physical principles that sustain the building. As part of these axioms of physics there is the core hypothesis that, how the Universe is partitioned into systems and subsystems is a subjective choice of the observer that should not affect the predictions of physics. Other foundational principles are the Postulates of Quantum Mechanics. However, we prove that these are not independent from the “independence of subsystem partitioning” hypothesis described above.

The methodology employed in reconstructing quantum theory involves defining a general mathematical framework that frames a landscape of possible theories and then positing principles that uniquely pick out quantum theory. In contrast, many traditional interpretations of quantum theory consider only quantum theory, not a larger space of possible theories. I will defend the modal methodology used in reconstruction by tracing the historical roots of Einstein’s distinction between principle and constructive theories.